An End Time Myth

[Peter]

AN END TIME MYTH
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/end_time_myth.htm

The following is pasted with permission of the Author Ellis
Skolfield and is available in printer friendly PDF here.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/end_time_myth.htm

An End-Time Myth

A widely held end-time view is that a seven-year time of
trouble will take place at the end of this age. Few know the
origin of the doctrine and the Great Tribulation (as it is called)
is generally accepted as an established fact. But just having an
explanation for a few puzzling Bible verses doesn't mean the
explanation is true.

As popular as the Seven-Year Tribulation view might be, it
might also be wrong because there is no direct scriptural
support for it. Oh, there are verses we interpret as a sevenyear-
tribulation, but not one verse in the Bible says we are
going to have such a time at the end of the age. Few question
the origin of the view, but it had a most dubious beginning . .
. and here's the story.

From the early Church fathers until the Reformation, the
generally accepted view of Bible prophecy was "linear historic,"
that Revelation was in the process of being fulfilled
throughout the Christian Era. But in the 16th century, a new
view of Bible prophecy was devised by a Jesuit priest to stop
the Reformers from teaching that the Catholic Church was
probably the "whore of Babylon" of Revelation 17:3-6.

In 1591AD, the Jesuit Ribera invented a "futurist" view. He
claimed that Revelation would not be fulfilled until the end of
the Christian Era. Ribera taught a rebuilt Babylon, a rebuilt
temple in Jerusalem and an end-time Antichrist, etc., etc.
Sound familiar? It should, Ribera is the father of the prophetic
views taught by many major denominations today.
But Ribera is only part of the story. In 1731, there was a
Spanish family living in Chili named the de Lacunzas, who had
a boy named Manuel. After fifteen years at home, young

2

Manuel decided to become a Catholic priest so he boarded a
ship to Spain. Thirty-six years later (when the Jesuits were
expelled from that country because of their brutality) the now
"Father" Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz had to move to Imola, Italy,
where he remained for the rest of his life.

In Imola, de Lacunza claimed to be a converted Jew named
Rabbi Juan Jushafat Ben-Ezra. Under that alias, he wrote a 900
page book titled The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. In
it, Lacunza theorized that the Church would be taken to be
with the Lord some 45 days before Jesus' final return to Earth.
During that 45 days (while the Church was in heaven), God
was supposedly going to pour out His wrath upon the wicked
remaining on Earth.1 Believe it or not, a Chilean Jesuit, a.k.a.
a Jewish Rabbi, theorized the earliest mini-trib, pre-trib-rapture
view on record!2 But to continue on . . .

De Lacunza died in Imola in 1801 and that should have been
the end of it. But after his death, Lacunza's views were taught
in Spain. In 1812 his book was published in Spanish. Fourteen
years later, it was translated into English by a radical cultist
named Edward Irving. Lacunza's views could have died there,
too, for most in England saw Irving as a heretic.
 
But now the plot thickens. About the same time, an Irvingite
evangelist named Robert Norton met a little Scottish girl
named Margaret Macdonald who supposedly had a vision of
the church being secretly raptured. Norton was so charmed by
the idea that he preached her "vision" all over England.
_______________________

Footnotes
1 De Lacunza derived his view from a premature interpretation of the 1290 and the 1335
days of Dan 12:11-12. We now know his view to be faulty because we now have the true
fulfillment of those prophecies in the new nation of Israel and can prove with certainty
what those "days" really mean. You can read the details in Skolfield's book The False
Prophet, also downloadable from this site.
2 Though not so well known, an 18th century American pastor, Morgan Edwards,
may have published a pre-trib rapture paper slightly earlier than de Lacunza. But
when one looks at the tremendous impact the Scofield Bible had on the western
church, it appears that Ribera-Lacunza-Macdonald-Darby-Scofield is the route
through which this view gained wide acceptance. A copy of Irving's translation of
Lacunza's work is archived in Oxford University Library, Oxford, England. (John
Brey, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching, pp1-12)
______________________________

3

John Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren, became
interested in this new doctrine so he attended several Irvingite
meetings. In his letters Darby states that he had "come to an
understanding of this new truth" and made no secret of the fact
that he had been influenced by de Lacunza's writings.

Darby, however, wasn't satisfied with the rather simplistic
Lacunza-Irving 45-day tribulation idea, so he devised a more
complex scheme. Darby thought the last week of Daniel's 70
weeks (Dan 9:24-27) was still unfulfilled so he theorized that
the 70th week might actually be a future seven-year-tribulation
that would take place at the end of the Christian Era. To make
his idea fit world history, he also invented a 2000 year gap
between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. It was all guesswork
theology, but there you have it, the true origin of the seven-year
tribulation and pre-trib rapture doctrines!  Upon that
dubious foundation, Darby and his associates then added a few
of Jesuit Ribera's wrinkles:

1. That a Jewish temple would be rebuilt and animal
sacrifices reestablished.
2. That Antichrist would appear and rule the world for
seven years.
3. That after 3 years of good rule, this supposed
Antichrist would turn against the Jews, stop the sacrifices,
and start the battle of Armageddon.

Whew, it went on and on in a dizzying profusion of unsupportable
conjectures, all based upon Darby's imaginary 2000
year gap theory and the seven-year-tribulation he conjured up
from Daniel's 70th week.

If Darby hadn't visited the United States, his seven-year idea
could have died right then, too. After all, there weren't many
Darbyites around. But while visiting the United States, Darby
met C. I. Scofield.

C. I. was so taken by the Ribera-Lacunza-Macdonald-Darby
ideas that he decided to include them in the annotated Bible he
was working on. Sound Bible scholars of the day like A. J.
Gordon, Charles R. Erdman and W.G. Moorhead tried to
dissuade him. Three members of Scofield's revision committee
even resigned because of his unswerving support for the view,

4

but their voices were not heard. The seven-year-tribulation
doctrine remained . . . and that's how a Jesuit's imaginative
creation - which grew like a poisonous mushroom - was
incorporated into the now-famous notes of the Scofield
Reference Bible.3

Since the Protestant Church held the Jesuits and Irvingites
to be heretical, everyone involved tried to hide the origin of the
doctrine and by almost unbelievable deception claimed to be
the originators of the creed themselves. They were generally
successful, for most pastors and theologians believe John Darby
and C. I. Scofield to be the fathers of what is known today as
Dispensational Eschatology.

In the following decades, the Scofield Bible became the most
widely read Bible in the English language so that annotated
Bible is the primary vehicle by which the seven-year-tribulation
view was spread throughout American churches. Scathing
reviews have been written against Scofield's views by various
respected scholars, but others presume Scofield's notes to be all
but inspired. Even today, some folks think a commentator's
notes below the line are as valid as the text above it.4

Dr. Ironside of Moody Bible Institute fully supported Darby-
Scofield, but later in life admitted that it was "full of holes."
Dallas Theological Seminary, Biola University and other centers
of dispensational thinking also support Darby's views. There
have been a host of rebuttals by conservative theologians, but
few have bothered to refute the Ribera-Lacunza-Mcdonald-
Darby-Scofield view in a language that the everyday saint can
understand.
__________________________

Footnotes
3 Albertus Pieters wrote, "From start to finish it [the Scofield Bible] is a partisan
book, definitely, both openly and under cover, an instrument of propaganda in
favor of an exceedingly doubtful eschatology . . . If Darby and his school are
right, the entire Christian church, for eighteen-hundred years, was wrong on a
vital part of the Christian faith" Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible, Albertus
Pieters, (Union City, PA, Bible Truth Depot, 1932) pp25, 27.
4 Dr. T. T. Shields humorously commented: "From a position of entire ignorance
of the Scripture to a position of oracular religious certainty -- especially in
eschatological matters -- for some people requires but from three to six months
with a Scofield Bible" The Gospel Witness (Toronto Canada, April 7th, 1932).
______________________________

5

It is almost impossible to believe that major end-time
doctrines of the Protestant church began in the minds of a
couple of Jesuit priests, one of which wrote under an assumed
name . . . and even more unbelievable, that those views were
amplified by the supposed vision of a fifteen year old girl who
had only been a Christian for a year, dabbled in the occult and
had a documented levitation.5 But the historic record of the
origin of Dispensational Eschatology is unassailable.6

Many seminary students have tried to reconcile the plain
assertions of Scripture with the dispensational position, but to
no avail. Eventually, the future pastors just accept Ribera-
Lacunza-Macdonald-Darby-Scofield and after being ordained
go forth and happily teach this false doctrine to their flocks.
Rarely do they question the quivering foundation upon which
they are trying to build: the questionable opinions of the Jesuits
who started it all.7

Many evangelical churches still champion the seven-year
view, but it is so counter to the plain statements of the Bible
itself - particularly the last trumpet - that one wonders how it
has managed to command so many ardent supporters . . .
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn
away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
_____________________________
Footnotes
5 Levitation is recognized by most churches as a sign of demonic activity.
6 The Church is indebted to Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot, (Simpsonville,
SC, Millennium III Publishers) for 23 years of researching source documents to
uncover the true origin of present-day dispensational eschatology.
7 Dr. Harry Ironside of Moody Bible Institute, himself an ardent supporter of the
Ribera-Lacunza-Macdonald-Darby-Scofield eschatological scheme, admitted in his
Mysteries of God, p.50: ". . . until brought to the fore through the writings of . . .
Mr. J. N. Darby, the doctrine taught by Dr. Scofield [i.e., the Seven-Year Tribulation
theory] is scarcely to be found in a single book throughout a period of 1600 years.
If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in measure done,
the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre- and post-Nicene, the theological
treatises of the scholastic divines . . . the literature of the reformation . . . the
Puritans. He will find the 'mystery' conspicuous by its absence."
Yes indeed, that so-called "mystery is absent," because the Bible doesn't teach
it!
________________________________

6

We are very near the end of all things. The Jews are home
in Israel now, just as the Lord predicted they would be in
countless Scriptures. Because of the many prophecies that have
been fulfilled in the last sixty years, we can now state
conclusively that all Scriptures used to formulate the sevenyear-
tribulation view, including Daniel's 70th week, have been
fulfilled. The Ribera-Lacunza-Irving-Macdonald-Darby-Scofield
dispensational end-time scheme just isn't true. And since it isn't,
maybe we should look at Daniel's prophecies again to see if we
can find out what they are really all about.8

You can download an explanation of Daniel's 70th Week from
this site, but to get the complete picture, you should also
download Skolfield's latest book on Bible prophecy, The False
Prophet.

God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not
based on how good he is at defending his doctrine, but on
how willing he is to seek out and follow the truth.
______________________________

Footnotes
8 The futurist view, contrived by the Jesuit priest Ribera in 1591AD, was the
foundation for Lacunza's "tribulation" musings. Ribera theorized a future
antichrist, a rebuilt Babylon and a Jewish temple in Jerusalem at the end of this
age. The Praeterist view, conceived by the Jesuit priest Alcazar in 1614AD,
claimed just the opposite - that the book of Revelation was fulfilled by the fall of
Jerusalem in 70AD. Both views were in opposition to the linear historic view that
until then had been the generally accepted position of the true church.  Those two
innovative Jesuit positions succeeded in excluding fifteen centuries of unsavory
Roman Church history from the scrutiny the Bible prophecies that showed the
Roman Church hierarchy to be at least one face of Rev 17's "whore of Babylon."
For documentation, read Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead To Rome? (Gerrards
Cross, Bucks, UK, Dorchester House Publications, 1991) p. 202.

END


Webmaster Note:
Mr. Skolfield attended Columbia Bible college in the early 1950s where he specialized
in eschatology and Biblical archeology.  He pastored a church and taught dispensational
eschatology for many years before he felt a need to shore up the foundations of that doctrine.  

This isn't the only such evaluation of futurism or preterism and partial preterism.  
Yahoo - alcazar ribera darby - and you will be treated to hundreds of sites to review.
Or Yahoo - futurism preterism -  

If you attend a futurist Church simply ask your pastor, or the guy in charge of doctrine:
"How many Churches held futurist doctrine prior to the Darby's Plymouth Bretheren"

I asked this of pastors for months.  Not a single one can cite a single church that
held futurist doctrine prior to a portion of the Plymouth Bretheren, and then not until
the late 1800s and on into the 20th century protestant church, thanks to C.I. Scofield.

[resistingrexmundi]

Peter if you know of a better place to put this just move it there. I just wanted to post this while I had it fresh in my mind.

I find it interesting that while there are allusions made to Rome in Revelation ie the purple, and scarlet colorings so on and so forth, there is a direct connection between Rome and Babylon in 1 Peter.

1Pe 5:13   The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son. 

This epistle was authored for the Church in Rome. What do you think?

[Peter]

Peter if you know of a better place to put this just move it there. I just wanted to post this while I had it fresh in my mind.

I find it interesting that while there are allusions made to Rome in Revelation ie the purple, and scarlet colorings so on and so forth, there is a direct connection between Rome and Babylon in 1 Peter.

1Pe 5:13   The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.  

This epistle was authored for the Church in Rome. What do you think?

I don't know.
But you might start with a few commentaries.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1842&commInfo=5&topic=1%20Peter&ar=1Pe_5_13

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Pe&c=5&v=13&t=KJV#comm/13

[Peter]

I did get schooled regarding there being no reference in the church before Darby. Perhaps that's why Ironside used the figure of 1600 years:

I included the full quote typed out of my copy of "Mysteries of God"

""CHAPTER V

THE GREAT MYSTERY OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

Throughout the writings of the apostle Paul he again and again refers to a wondrous secret, which he designates in a special way as "the mystery," or "the great mystery." Other mysteries he treats of, as we have seen, and shall notice later; but there is one that is preeminently such. It occupies much of his ministry, and is clearly the chief gem in the diadem of the truth of Christianity; yet for centuries it was almost entirely lost sight of. In fact, until brought to the fore through the writings and the preaching and teaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr. J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon throughout a period of sixteen hundred years! If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre- and post-Nicene; the theological treatises of the scholastic divines; Roman Catholic writers of all shades of thought; the literature of the Reformation; the sermons and expositions of the Puritans; and the general theological works of the day. He will find "the mystery" conspicuous by its absence. Of ordinances exalted to the place of mysteries, as in heathen rites, he will find much; but as to the mystery, which to the apostle was so unspeakably precious, rarely a reference!"

In another forum thread here

It was pointed out to me in this post the following first from Irenaeus and the second two from Hippolytus:

"The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: 'I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,' calling Antichrist 'the other,' because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one 'who feared not God, neither regarded man,' to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: 'And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active, and gone on prosperously.' And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: 'And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence, and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.' And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, 'the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.' Now three years and six months constitute the half-week." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.25

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxvi.html

"Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: 'And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.' As also it was announced to Daniel: 'And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed'—that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the rest of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: 'And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'" - Hippolytus, On Daniel, section 39

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...iv.i.x.ii.html

"But it becomes us further diligently to examine and set forth the period at which these things shall come to pass, and how the little horn shall spring up in their midst. For when the legs of iron have issued in the feet and toes, according to the similitude of the image and that of the terrible beast, as has been shown in the above, (then shall be the time) when the iron and the clay shall be mingled together. Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, 'And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.' By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1, 260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations." - Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, section 43

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.i.html

[Peter]

In an effort to provide a cautionary warning, that we shouldn't view the early church father's writings as if they were holy writ - particularly since there is no shortage of contradiction between them - I did a little poking around to see if I could find something that might temper the enthusiasm.

"Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin... By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.....The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosed by her faith."

And here I thought it was Jesus' sacrifice that became the cause of salvation of the whole human race. I doubt there are any futurists that would agree with that

"Hippolytus, 170-236, evidently was the first to pioneer the theme that the Jews deserved punishment for the killing of Jesus:

    "Now then, incline thine ear to me and hear my words, and give heed, thou Jew. Many a time does thou boast thyself, in that thou didst condemn Jesus of Nazareth to death, and didst give him vinegar and gall to drink; and thou dost vaunt thyself because of this. Come, therefore, and let us consider together whether perchance thou dost boast unrighteously, O, Israel, and whether thou small portion of vinegar and all has not brought down this fearful threatening upon thee and whether this is not the cause of thy present condition involved in these myriad of troubles.""
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.ii.html

"For this reason, according to Eusebius of Caesaria, Jews could not rebuild the Jerusalem or the temple in Jerusalem, as their destruction had been visited upon them for killing the Messiah."
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Anti-Semitism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
"Hippolytus of Rome (martyred 13 August 235): "[The Jews] have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting."[26]
Hippolytus, Treatise Against the Jews 6, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 5.220.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.ii.html

"5. Listen with understanding, O Jew, to what the Christ says: “They gave me gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” And these things He did indeed endure from you. Hear the Holy Ghost tell you also what return He made to you for that little portion of vinegar.  For the prophet says, as in the person of God, “Let their table become a snare and retribution.” Of what retribution does He speak? Manifestly, of the misery which has now got hold of thee."

"6. And then hear what follows:  “Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not.” And surely ye have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. For now that the true light has arisen, ye wander as in the night, and stumble on places with no roads, and fall headlong, as having forsaken the way that saith, “I am the way.”1570 Furthermore, hear this yet more serious word: “And their back do thou bend always;” that means, in order that they may be slaves to the nations, not four hundred and thirty years as in Egypt, nor seventy as in Babylon, but bend them to servitude, he says, “always.” In fine, then, how dost thou indulge vain hopes, expecting to be delivered from the misery which holdeth thee? For that is somewhat strange. And not unjustly has he imprecated this blindness of eyes upon thee. But because thou didst cover the eyes of Christ, (and1571) thus thou didst beat Him, for this reason, too, bend thou thy back for servitude always. And whereas thou didst pour out His blood in indignation, hear what thy recompense shall be: “Pour out Thine indignation upon them, and let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them;” and, “Let their habitation be desolate,” to wit, their celebrated temple."

He didn't likely harbor the notion that any future temple could be sanctified!

[Peter]

From that other forum.

It isn't difficult to pull verses out of context and simply declare a doctrine around them. However it's another thing to build it into an entire understanding in which no other verses or passages are contradicted. And it's obviously backwards to begin a doctrine, with interpretation of the figurative language of a prophetic dream - let alone from the old covenant - and then get stuck having to nullify literal verses in literal passages in the new covenant that are not open to interpretation upon which a Christian doctrine should be founded, not begrudgingly paid short shrift as an inconvenient afterthought.

"Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: 'And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.' As also it was announced to Daniel: 'And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed'—that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the rest of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: 'And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'" - Hippolytus, On Daniel, section 39

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...iv.i.x.ii.html

Do dispensationalists believe what Hippolytus taught, or as is evident, what John Darby taught?

A bit late in time to imagine "the Antichrist" will build Jerusalem. Do today's dispensationalists believe "the" "Antichrist" will build the sanctuary?

As the church continued to develop over time, the error in doing as Hippolytus did, little doubt became increasingly apparent:

"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Isaac Newton

Good advice today and as Hippolytus makes painfully clear, would have been good advice for the ECFs as well! What else did this alleged predecessor of Darby's eschatology have say?

5. Listen with understanding, O Jew, to what the Christ says: “They gave me gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” And these things He did indeed endure from you. Hear the Holy Ghost tell you also what return He made to you for that little portion of vinegar. For the prophet says, as in the person of God, “Let their table become a snare and retribution.” Of what retribution does He speak? Manifestly, of the misery which has now got hold of thee.

6. And then hear what follows: “Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not.” And surely ye have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. For now that the true light has arisen, ye wander as in the night, and stumble on places with no roads, and fall headlong, as having forsaken the way that saith, “I am the way.”1570 Furthermore, hear this yet more serious word: “And their back do thou bend always;” that means, in order that they may be slaves to the nations, not four hundred and thirty years as in Egypt, nor seventy as in Babylon, but bend them to servitude, he says, “always.” In fine, then, how dost thou indulge vain hopes, expecting to be delivered from the misery which holdeth thee? For that is somewhat strange. And not unjustly has he imprecated this blindness of eyes upon thee. But because thou didst cover the eyes of Christ, (and1571) thus thou didst beat Him, for this reason, too, bend thou thy back for servitude always. And whereas thou didst pour out His blood in indignation, hear what thy recompense shall be: “Pour out Thine indignation upon them, and let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them;” and, “Let their habitation be desolate,” to wit, their celebrated temple.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.ii.html

What happened to Darby's dispensations? (besides the new covenant!)

His words may have inspired more than a few

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord.” (To the Archbishops of Sens and Paris)

Pope Saint Martin I: “If anyone shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”

Pope Benedict XIV: “It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.” (Quoting Pope Innocent III, “Etsi Judaeos”)

Pope Gregory IX: “They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

No shortage of Nazis, skinheads and the KKK proclaim "the Jews" killed Jesus, their unregenerate nature never allowing them to understand that it wasn't Jews or Roman soldiers that killed Jesus, but the sinful nature of mankind that killed Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 

[Peter]

"The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: 'I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,' calling Antichrist 'the other,' because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one 'who feared not God, neither regarded man,' to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: 'And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active, and gone on prosperously.' And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: 'And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence, and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.' And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, 'the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.' Now three years and six months constitute the half-week." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.25

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxvi.html

Above is the other future predictor that was cited as the only other shred of evidence the poster used to suggest that Darby's doctrine was in the church prior to Darby, from the pen of another individual named Irenaeus. What else did Irenaeus' understanding of scripture cause him to proclaim?

"Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin... By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.....The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosed by her faith."

Irenaeus was a father of Marianism. Yet we have at least one forum member that hangs on these men's words as if they were scripture, because outside of these two, there has not been presented a hint of Darby's 7-year tribulation pre-trib rapture doctrine in the church throughout the 1800 years or so, prior to John Nelson Darby. So we have Hippolytus who's writings suggest he was an anti-semite, and the likely inspiration for so many popes declaring that Jews should remain in a state of "perpetual enslavement" of Christians forever, and Irenaeus that is perhaps responsible for millions of Roman Catholics worshiping Mary. If they were so deceived, can't you imagine, even for a moment, that you could be too?

Outside of those two - so far - nothing about Darby's doctrine before Darby. Nadda. Doesn't that tell you something?

If that weren't enough, then how about a doctrine that necessarily precludes Darby's followers from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet of the book of Revelation, even though 1/4 of mankind must deny the Son of God and reject his shed blood as articles of their faith in Muhammad, and commit the most egregious and ONLY unforgivable sin in their cult, if a follower of Muhammad were to confess that Jesus is the Son of God or even pray in Jesus' name. A sin worse than child rape or mass murder.

Yet John Nelson Darby's 19th century eschatology prevents his followers from even considering that Muhammad could be THE false prophet and his Islamic kingdom the "beast" of Revelation 13 (the only hermeneutically supported conclusion) even though Muhammad's followers are commanded to either kill, or subjugate all non-Muslims to denying the Son of God and rejecting His crucifixion and saving shed blood, to instead prostrate toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca five times a day, while praying in the "vain repetitions of the heathen" in the names of the Arabian pagan's deity "Allah" and his "messenger" Muhammad. Even compelled by Muhammad to go on the Arabian pagan's "Hajj".

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Doesn't anything about the above seem even a little peculiar to you?

[Peter]

Still later in that forum:

The Amillennialism of Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202]

The eschatology of Irenaeus is nearly identical to that of Barnabus. Like Barnabus, Irenaeus is falsely touted as being premillennialist. Both fathers held to the 6000 year “day is a thousand years” theory concerning the history of the world, but neither equates the seventh day with a millennium. Instead, like Barnabus, Irenaeus has the world ending after 6,000 years, with no millennium.

The Millennium
“For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year." (Against Heresies, 5:28:3)
Irenaeus does mention that “the righteous shall reign in the earth” after the resurrection, but that alone does not constitute a literal millennial reign, as this is a postmillennial belief as well. He clearly believes that all thing prophecied "will come to an end at the sixth thousand year", thus eliminating an earthly millennium. Irenaeus does seem to be the first to hold to a rebuilt Jerusalem.
“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one.” (Against Heresies 5:35:1)
However, this earthly kingdom is described many times by Irenaeus as an eternal kingdom, not a temporary millennium. Irenaeus’ clearest statement on the matter concerns the purpose of Christ Second Advent.
“Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; (Luke 10:12) but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven. If then the advent of the Son comes indeed alike to all, but is for the purpose of judging, and separating the believing from the unbelieving,” (Against Heresies 5:27:1)
Irenaeus speaks of one resurrection for both believers and unbelievers, and clearly tell us that the purpose of Christ Advent is for judging both, not for establishing an earthly millennium.

Antichrist

Irenaeus is a futurist regarding antichrist, but admits his ignorance regarding the matter.
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Against Heresies 5:30:3)
This statement seems to be the basis for the late dating of the Book of Revelation, though the pronoun could easily refer to the Apostle John himself, as seen above. In any case, Irenaeus admits that he was not sure of antichrist’s identity. Eusebius and others rely on this statement as support for a late date of Revelation, yet contradict themselves in other passages. It also must be noted that Irenaeus was not the best historian of his day, writing that Christ lived to an age of 50 and had an earthly ministry of 15 years.

The Abrahamic Covenant

Regarding Judaism, Irenaeus, like nearly all church fathers, was clearly a proponent of “replacement theology”, viewing the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ. This is a recurring problem for any modern premillennialist who seeks to build support for his eschatology from the study of patristics.
“Therefore Abraham also, knowing the. Father through the Word, who made heaven and earth, confessed Him to be God; and having learned, by an announcement [made to him], that the Son of God would be a man among men, by whose advent his seed should be as the stars of heaven, he desired to see that day, so that he might himself also embrace Christ; and, seeing it through the spirit of prophecy, he rejoiced. Wherefore Simeon also, one of his descendants, carried fully out the rejoicing of the patriarch, and said: "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace. For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people: a light for the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of the people Israel." And the angels, in like manner, announced tidings of great joy to the shepherds who were keeping watch by night. Moreover, Mary said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my salvation;"--the rejoicing of Abraham descending upon those who sprang from him,--those, namely, who were watching, and who beheld Christ, and believed in Him; while, on the other hand, there was a reciprocal rejoicing which passed backwards from the children to Abraham, who did also desire to see the day of Christ's coming. Rightly, then, did our Lord bear witness to him, saying, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad."For not alone upon Abraham's account did He say these things, but also that He might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son Himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passable, and spake with the human race, that He might from the stones raise up children unto Abraham, and fulfil the promise which God had given him, and that He might make his seed as the stars of heaven, as John the Baptist says: "For God is able from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Now, this Jesus did by drawing us off from the religion of stones, and bringing us over from hard and fruitless cogitations, and establishing in us a faith like to Abraham. As Paul does also testify, saying that we are children of Abraham because of the similarity of our faith, and the promise of inheritance." (Against Heresies, 4:7:1-2)
In addition, Irenaeus viewed the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a sign of the new covenant, as well as the fulfillment of the parable of the wicked vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-45).
“Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they venture to assert that, if it had been "the city of the great King," it would not have been deserted. This is just as if any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God, it would never part company with the wheat; and that the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped away and deprived of the clusters. But as these [vine twigs] have not been originally made for their own sake, but for that of the fruit growing upon them, which being come to maturity and taken away, they are left behind, and those which do not conduce to fructification are lopped off altogether; so also [was it with] Jerusalem, which had in herself borne the yoke of bondage (under which man was reduced, who in former times was not subject to God when death was reigning, and being subdued, became a fit subject for liberty), when the fruit of liberty had come, and reached maturity, and been reaped and stored in the barn, and when those which had the power to produce fruit had been carried away from her [i.e., from Jerusalem], and scattered throughout all the world. Even as Esaias saith, "The children of Jacob shall strike root, and Israel shall flourish, and the whole world shall be filled with his fruit." The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John." And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed." (Against Heresies, 4:4:1-2)
In conclusion, the simplest reading of Irenaeus tends toward amillennialism, with a heavy dose of replacement theology. While Irenaeus was a futurist regarding antichrist, he admitted his own ignorance of the subject. There is very little, if anything, in the writings of Irenaeus that is compatible with modern premillennialism.

http://christianityinhistory.blogspot.com/2007/11/amillennialism-of-irenaeus-ad-120-202.html